'Hate Speech' Is Anything You Don't Want To Hear

[JoeB131]

First, neither you nor the students have the authority to make that judgement. You think you do, but you don't.

Yeah, actually, they do, it's their community.

Second, you're making Milo into a martyr, which only attracts more interest. If he gets the left wing that n mad, he must be saying something brilliant.

No, he's saying whatever obnoxious thing that gets him attention. The problem today is that we pay attention to people like Trump, Milo, Coulter because they are entertaining. (Unless they finally cross a line like Milo did and get consigned to oblivion). And we are seeing the end result of that when News becomes Entertainment. Let's give Trump a shitload of free air time because he might say something like 'Mexicans are rapists" instead of listening to boring old Jeb Bush talk about common core.

This isn't "brilliant", buddy. It's kind of the opposite of that.

And third, if you're really going to claim that the mob has the right to shut down speech that it thinks has no place in the public square, you should have no problem with someone torching Howard Stern's studio and destroying any device that's streaming his show. Or is that different because reasons?

Well, let's look at that. Why is Howard on Streaming video. Well, it's because too many times when he was on publicly broadcast radio, people called in and complained about him, to the point no radio station wanted to carry him anymore. So now if you want to listen to Howard sexually harrass young actresses, you'll have to pay to do it.

So you kind of picked a bad example, didn't you?

 

[JoeB131]

the only thing you have probably spanked in the past few years is your own 2" pecker.

But you're the one who wants a gun to compensate for his "shortcomings".

Briebart and Twitter are not public universities.

No, they aren't. They are people who've decided that he was to obnoxious to inflict on their audiences... just like the Berkeley community did.

And honestly the FCC should declare Twitter, Facebook et al as part of the commons via use of airwaves/bandwidth, and apply the first amendment to them as well.

But that's the point. Not everyone can get on MSNBC of Fox. Oh, none of those guys will have Milo on anymore either. So we can add to your list of "those oppressing free speech".

Here was the thing. These kids were rightfully offended by the things this guy says, but some lunkhead said, "Yeah, let's give him a Univesity Forum we don't give to people who actually have something to say!"

And the students said, "Um, no."

 

[Rustic]

First, neither you nor the students have the authority to make that judgement. You think you do, but you don't.

Yeah, actually, they do, it's their community.

Second, you're making Milo into a martyr, which only attracts more interest. If he gets the left wing that n mad, he must be saying something brilliant.

No, he's saying whatever obnoxious thing that gets him attention. The problem today is that we pay attention to people like Trump, Milo, Coulter because they are entertaining. (Unless they finally cross a line like Milo did and get consigned to oblivion). And we are seeing the end result of that when News becomes Entertainment. Let's give Trump a shitload of free air time because he might say something like 'Mexicans are rapists" instead of listening to boring old Jeb Bush talk about common core.

This isn't "brilliant", buddy. It's kind of the opposite of that.

And third, if you're really going to claim that the mob has the right to shut down speech that it thinks has no place in the public square, you should have no problem with someone torching Howard Stern's studio and destroying any device that's streaming his show. Or is that different because reasons?

Well, let's look at that. Why is Howard on Streaming video. Well, it's because too many times when he was on publicly broadcast radio, people called in and complained about him, to the point no radio station wanted to carry him anymore. So now if you want to listen to Howard sexually harrass young actresses, you'll have to pay to do it.

So you kind of picked a bad example, didn't you?

See that’s the problem with political correctness, it’s only one sided.
It truly is for pussies who can’t tolerate other peoples opinions…

 

[martybegan]

the only thing you have probably spanked in the past few years is your own 2" pecker.

But you're the one who wants a gun to compensate for his "shortcomings".

Briebart and Twitter are not public universities.

No, they aren't. They are people who've decided that he was to obnoxious to inflict on their audiences... just like the Berkeley community did.

And honestly the FCC should declare Twitter, Facebook et al as part of the commons via use of airwaves/bandwidth, and apply the first amendment to them as well.

But that's the point. Not everyone can get on MSNBC of Fox. Oh, none of those guys will have Milo on anymore either. So we can add to your list of "those oppressing free speech".

Here was the thing. These kids were rightfully offended by the things this guy says, but some lunkhead said, "Yeah, let's give him a Univesity Forum we don't give to people who actually have something to say!"

And the students said, "Um, no."

Fail bullshit is fail. You need new material.

Again, public university, so they can't just decide to become all violent to stop someone they don't like. So I guess places like Birmingham were in the right to blast protesters with water hoses because "the community didn't want those pesky black people speaking an marching"

MSNBC is not twitter or facebook. Twitter and Facebook advertise themselves as open meeting spaces for people to interact with each other. I see them as the commons, and thus can be regulated under the 1st amendment via FCC's control of airwaves and bandwidth.

A bunch of Students said "yes", he and other speakers like him were invited by groups like YAF and College Republicans. Other students don't get to use the heckler's veto to try to prevent this.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, public university, so they can't just decide to become all violent to stop someone they don't like. So I guess places like Birmingham were in the right to blast protesters with water hoses because "the community didn't want those pesky black people speaking an marching"

Not really, but do try to grasp at straws.

Should be pointed out that those black folks didn't start getting those civil rights until they actually started burning things white people care about.

MSNBC is not twitter or facebook. Twitter and Facebook advertise themselves as open meeting spaces for people to interact with each other. I see them as the commons, and thus can be regulated under the 1st amendment via FCC's control of airwaves and bandwidth.

Well, what you see and what the reality is are two different things. I did get to hear one of my brother's white trash friends whine about how she called Obama the N-word on Facebook and got banned.

Facebook is a business. They should conduct themselves like a business. giving forums to hate groups is bad for business.

Now, if Stormfront wants to start its own Facebook, that's awesome.

A bunch of Students said "yes", he and other speakers like him were invited by groups like YAF and College Republicans. Other students don't get to use the heckler's veto to try to prevent this.

Well, except they totally did. And I'll betcha the university got a lot more selective for future speakers after that.

 

[martybegan]

Again, public university, so they can't just decide to become all violent to stop someone they don't like. So I guess places like Birmingham were in the right to blast protesters with water hoses because "the community didn't want those pesky black people speaking an marching"

Not really, but do try to grasp at straws.

Should be pointed out that those black folks didn't start getting those civil rights until they actually started burning things white people care about.

MSNBC is not twitter or facebook. Twitter and Facebook advertise themselves as open meeting spaces for people to interact with each other. I see them as the commons, and thus can be regulated under the 1st amendment via FCC's control of airwaves and bandwidth.

Well, what you see and what the reality is are two different things. I did get to hear one of my brother's white trash friends whine about how she called Obama the N-word on Facebook and got banned.

Facebook is a business. They should conduct themselves like a business. giving forums to hate groups is bad for business.

Now, if Stormfront wants to start its own Facebook, that's awesome.

A bunch of Students said "yes", he and other speakers like him were invited by groups like YAF and College Republicans. Other students don't get to use the heckler's veto to try to prevent this.

Well, except they totally did. And I'll betcha the university got a lot more selective for future speakers after that.

Actually they got most of what they wanted in the law via peaceful civil disobedience. The violence came later, and your supposition that it helped anything is dubious at best.

They are a business that uses FCC regulated means to transmit information. Extending the 1st amendment to them as a part of the commons is a logical interpretation of the 1st.
Or if facebook is the only game in town, I'm sure we can get some nice anti-trust legislation going to take care of that.

That you support the heckler's veto says all there is to say about you. You are a wanna-be thug and a coward. Note how few people come to your defense with your posts, and those that do are just as miserable as you are.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually they got most of what they wanted in the law via peaceful civil disobedience. The violence came later, and your supposition that it helped anything is dubious at best.

Um, okay, I lived through that time, I remember the race riots. They were kind of a big deal.

They are a business that uses FCC regulated means to transmit information. Extending the 1st amendment to them as a part of the commons is a logical interpretation of the 1st.
Or if facebook is the only game in town, I'm sure we can get some nice anti-trust legislation going to take care of that.

The problem with that is that Facebook actually lets a of stuff go. (Mostly because your friends are the ones who see your posts, and they usualy don't rat you out.) But when they have a creature like Milo inciting violence against people, like he did with poor Leslie Jones, they really do have an obligation to take action.

That you support the heckler's veto says all there is to say about you. You are a wanna-be thug and a coward. Note how few people come to your defense with your posts, and those that do are just as miserable as you are.

Guy, first,7593 Thanks and 18K Rating points. I'm doing fine, thanks for asking. More than you in fact. (I'm sure you'll want to do some argument that I have twice as many posts as you, so whatever floats your boat, buddy.

Second, when you live in a time where an unelected president preaching hate and racism is the norm, you really need to have a heckler's veto for people like Milo.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Easyt65, Liberals are just intolerant of people who are different than them, like people who bathe, people who can read, people with opposable thumbs....

 

[JoeB131]

Easyt65, Liberals are just intolerant of people who are different than them, like people who bathe, people who can read, people with opposable thumbs....

Says the Science Denying, Bible thumping right.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

How come the Liberals never call these recurring Muslim Mass Murder Attacks hate crimes?

 

[martybegan]

Actually they got most of what they wanted in the law via peaceful civil disobedience. The violence came later, and your supposition that it helped anything is dubious at best.

Um, okay, I lived through that time, I remember the race riots. They were kind of a big deal.

They are a business that uses FCC regulated means to transmit information. Extending the 1st amendment to them as a part of the commons is a logical interpretation of the 1st.
Or if facebook is the only game in town, I'm sure we can get some nice anti-trust legislation going to take care of that.

The problem with that is that Facebook actually lets a of stuff go. (Mostly because your friends are the ones who see your posts, and they usualy don't rat you out.) But when they have a creature like Milo inciting violence against people, like he did with poor Leslie Jones, they really do have an obligation to take action.

That you support the heckler's veto says all there is to say about you. You are a wanna-be thug and a coward. Note how few people come to your defense with your posts, and those that do are just as miserable as you are.

Guy, first,7593 Thanks and 18K Rating points. I'm doing fine, thanks for asking. More than you in fact. (I'm sure you'll want to do some argument that I have twice as many posts as you, so whatever floats your boat, buddy.

Second, when you live in a time where an unelected president preaching hate and racism is the norm, you really need to have a heckler's veto for people like Milo.

Yeah, but what did they accomplish?

They shouldn't have a choice in the matter. We can make it easy for them by extending 1st amendment protections to them thus freeing them of the responsibility of policing political speech.

I love math

Me You
TPP 0.138525 0.084531
RPP 0.469288 0.205867

So per capita I got you beat. You are just, as Mike Francesa always says about some Baseball players, a compiler.

He was elected just fine, stop trying to say having more hits than the other team wins you the baseball game.

And the only hate is coming from your side, and so far no evidence of any racism, considering illegal alien is not a race.

 

[The Derp]

How come the Liberals never call these recurring Muslim Mass Murder Attacks hate crimes?

How come you need someone to call something that? Are you so insecure that if they don't, you'll shit your pants or something?

 

[hadit]

First, neither you nor the students have the authority to make that judgement. You think you do, but you don't.

Yeah, actually, they do, it's their community.

Second, you're making Milo into a martyr, which only attracts more interest. If he gets the left wing that n mad, he must be saying something brilliant.

No, he's saying whatever obnoxious thing that gets him attention. The problem today is that we pay attention to people like Trump, Milo, Coulter because they are entertaining. (Unless they finally cross a line like Milo did and get consigned to oblivion). And we are seeing the end result of that when News becomes Entertainment. Let's give Trump a shitload of free air time because he might say something like 'Mexicans are rapists" instead of listening to boring old Jeb Bush talk about common core.

This isn't "brilliant", buddy. It's kind of the opposite of that.

And third, if you're really going to claim that the mob has the right to shut down speech that it thinks has no place in the public square, you should have no problem with someone torching Howard Stern's studio and destroying any device that's streaming his show. Or is that different because reasons?

Well, let's look at that. Why is Howard on Streaming video. Well, it's because too many times when he was on publicly broadcast radio, people called in and complained about him, to the point no radio station wanted to carry him anymore. So now if you want to listen to Howard sexually harrass young actresses, you'll have to pay to do it.

So you kind of picked a bad example, didn't you?

No, because no one rioted, burned anything, or threatened bodily harm to get him off the air. IOW, they did it the right way, so I picked a good example.

It sounds like you're trying to make the point that a community should have the right to violently enforce a moral code that other communities would not. Is that what you are saying? Should a community have the legal right to, for example, burn down a movie theater that was showing a Michael Moore or Algore monstrosity?

After all, they would be exercising their right to police the content of speech within their own community, something of which you apparently approve.

 

[hadit]

Actually they got most of what they wanted in the law via peaceful civil disobedience. The violence came later, and your supposition that it helped anything is dubious at best.

Um, okay, I lived through that time, I remember the race riots. They were kind of a big deal.

They are a business that uses FCC regulated means to transmit information. Extending the 1st amendment to them as a part of the commons is a logical interpretation of the 1st.
Or if facebook is the only game in town, I'm sure we can get some nice anti-trust legislation going to take care of that.

The problem with that is that Facebook actually lets a of stuff go. (Mostly because your friends are the ones who see your posts, and they usualy don't rat you out.) But when they have a creature like Milo inciting violence against people, like he did with poor Leslie Jones, they really do have an obligation to take action.

That you support the heckler's veto says all there is to say about you. You are a wanna-be thug and a coward. Note how few people come to your defense with your posts, and those that do are just as miserable as you are.

Guy, first,7593 Thanks and 18K Rating points. I'm doing fine, thanks for asking. More than you in fact. (I'm sure you'll want to do some argument that I have twice as many posts as you, so whatever floats your boat, buddy.

Second, when you live in a time where an unelected president preaching hate and racism is the norm, you really need to have a heckler's veto for people like Milo.

Boy, am I glad we don't have that. That would be bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

How come the Liberals never call these recurring Muslim Mass Murder Attacks hate crimes?

Something that happens once every few years is hardly "Recurring", and it usually involves a mentally unstable person.

It's only scary when it's not a white mentally unstable person. Then it's the cost of freedom.

 

[JoeB131]

I love math

Yeah, I just didn't think you'd actually be petty enough to do it.. but you are a bundle of insecurities, aren't you.

Boy, am I glad we don't have that. That would be bad.

Yeah, it is kind of bad. Every day the man makes a laughingstock of this country, and every day, you are back here making excuses for him....

He was elected just fine, stop trying to say having more hits than the other team wins you the baseball game.

Nobody DIES because of a baseball game, buddy. Sports analogies are lame. People are DYING because this guy sucks at his job. And the people said NO!

 

[JoeB131]

It sounds like you're trying to make the point that a community should have the right to violently enforce a moral code that other communities would not. Is that what you are saying? Should a community have the legal right to, for example, burn down a movie theater that was showing a Michael Moore or Algore monstrosity?

After all, they would be exercising their right to police the content of speech within their own community, something of which you apparently approve.

All for it. Just like you guys were when you fired Milo from Breitbart and tried to shut down the NEA.

 

[JoeB131]

They shouldn't have a choice in the matter. We can make it easy for them by extending 1st amendment protections to them thus freeing them of the responsibility of policing political speech.

Or we can just let them throw the racists and creeps the fuck off when they violate standards. That works, too.

Personally, i think the Germans have it right. You belong to a Nazi group in Germany today, they throw your ass in prison.

 

[martybegan]

I love math

Yeah, I just didn't think you'd actually be petty enough to do it.. but you are a bundle of insecurities, aren't you.

Boy, am I glad we don't have that. That would be bad.

Yeah, it is kind of bad. Every day the man makes a laughingstock of this country, and every day, you are back here making excuses for him....

He was elected just fine, stop trying to say having more hits than the other team wins you the baseball game.

Nobody DIES because of a baseball game, buddy. Sports analogies are lame. People are DYING because this guy sucks at his job. And the people said NO!

No, I'm an engineer, we always have Excel up and running for some quick calculations.

You brought it up, I gave you the data. you are welcome.

Yeah, drama from the drama queen of USMB.

 

[martybegan]

They shouldn't have a choice in the matter. We can make it easy for them by extending 1st amendment protections to them thus freeing them of the responsibility of policing political speech.

Or we can just let them throw the racists and creeps the fuck off when they violate standards. That works, too.

Personally, i think the Germans have it right. You belong to a Nazi group in Germany today, they throw your ass in prison.

I don't want some corporate asshole deciding which speech is OK and which is not, it's comical that you want this.

The German's don't have a 1st amendment. Their loss.